Mere non-return of loan security and mental pressure without active instigation does not constitute abetment to suicide.

The deceased, Ramesh Dangi, committed suicide by consuming Sulphas poison

The prosecution alleged that the deceased had taken a loan of ₹40,000 from Respondent No. 1, providing two blank cheques as security. Despite repaying the loan, the respondents allegedly refused to return the cheques, took additional cash amounting to ₹1,50,000, and continued to pressurize the deceased for more money

A suicide note (Ex. P/18) named three individuals (Deepak Prajapati, Sattu Patidar, and a "Muslim Patel") as responsible for his death due to harassment over money

The Trial Court (Sessions Judge, Sehore) acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 306/34 of the IPC on 03.08.2023

The State filed this appeal seeking leave to challenge the acquittal

1. Whether the allegations of financial dispute and non-return of security cheques, as mentioned in the suicide note and oral testimony, constitute "instigation" or "abetment" under Section 107 of the IPC

2. Whether the Trial Court’s findings regarding the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the handwriting expert's report were perverse or legally implausible

The court applied Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) read with Section 107 (Definition of abetment) of the IPC

The court relied on S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, establishing that abetment requires a "positive act" or "active act" with clear mens rea to push the deceased to suicide

It further cited Prakash and Oris. v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that instigation must be in "close proximity" to the suicide and leave the victim with no other option

Regarding the scope of appeals against acquittal, the court followed Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, which mandates that if two views are possible, the view in favor of the accused must prevail

The High Court observed that while the death was suicidal, the prosecution failed to establish the critical element of "instigation"

The court noted significant evidentiary gaps: the handwriting on the initial complaint (Ex. P/5) was not verified by an expert, and PW-1 admitted his signature was obtained posthumously

The suicide note (Ex. P/18) did not specify exact debts or clarify how the alleged harassment directly incited the act of suicide

Applying the precedents, the Court reasoned that mere financial disputes, threats, or the non-return of cheques do not amount to the active, intentional provocation required for a conviction under Section 306 IPC

The Court found that the Trial Court's decision was a "legally plausible view" based on the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the expert report

The Court dismissed the applications seeking leave to appeal (I.A. No. 27718/2023 and I.A. No. 16926/2025) and consequently dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal